American Generosity

Wall Street Journal ^ | 5/13/06

[mathprof]

When the U.N.'s Jan Egeland called the U.S. "stingy" with foreign aid a couple of years back, he was playing to a stereotype promoted by those who want governments to redistribute global incomes. He was also wrong, and now we have the data to prove it.

The Hudson Institute recently released the 2006 Index of Global Philanthropy, the first comprehensive report on international aid by private institutions and individuals in the U.S. The index shows that millions of Americans give to the world's poor at a rate that is anything but "stingy." Voluntary giving by Americans dwarfs government aid the world over.

The assaults on U.S. generosity derive from a view that government assistance is the only aid that matters. Even on that count, the U.S. is far from miserly. In 2004 Washington provided official development aid of $19.7 billion, more than runners-up Japan and France put together. Add the benefits of American innovation and military sacrifice and other First World nations are even further behind.

Then there is the charity from the U.S. private sector. In 2004, the latest year for which many numbers are available, Americans -- through schools, religious institutions, companies, foundations and families -- gave at least $71 billion to the developing world, more than three times what the government gave. The index authors say it is impossible to capture all giving, so if they've erred it's on the low side.

[snip]

the index has been well received. "Many of the private organizations are stunned because they have heard for so long that America is stingy. They knew that American giving was large and important but they had no idea it was so big." That's OK, neither did the U.N.

[mathprof]

Surprised? I am not.

[stopem]

Fine SEND the money to them don't allow them in and allow them to take.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Years ago, I did a bit of research on private benevolence and taxation rates across the world. As conservatives might expect, when government takes on the job of private conscience, private giving goes down. The correlation was pretty good between economic freedom and private compassion. It almost goes without saying that when gub'mint takes over the business of benevolence, you end up with beggarly socialist doles and mega-graft like the UN oil-for-food debacle (perhaps the greatest economic fraud in history and still ignored by the free press).

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The assaults on U.S. generosity derive from a view that government assistance is the only aid that matters.

Socialism - which in America styles itself "liberalism" or "progressivism" is arrogance and contempt for the people, whom it patronizingly calls "the masses." It is only from such a POV that government assistance ("we're from the government and we're here to help you") is precious while much more focused and cumulatively larger voluntary efforts by the people are not even to be considered.